The Tribune: Haryana: Thursday, 18 June 2026.
The complainant had filed an RTI application before Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025; however, the SPIO in his response purportedly restrained the complainant from filing RTI applications on the ground that he had submitted repeated requests
The State Information
Commission, Haryana, has ruled that a State Public Information Officer (SPIO)
serves only as a statutory facilitator and has no legal jurisdiction,
authority, or power to “restrain, bar, or blacklist an appellant/complainant”
from filing Right to Information (RTI) applications.
Complainant Sandeep Sharan had filed an RTI application before Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025. However, the SPIO in his response dated January 21 purportedly restrained the complainant from filing RTI applications on the ground that he had submitted repeated RTI requests. While denying the information, SPIO further stated in his response that action may be taken against the complainant for disrupting the discharge of official duties if he did not desist from filing RTI applications.
Aggrieved by the response, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Information Commission on January 27. The Commission observed that SPIO failed to furnish the complainant with correct and complete information.
After hearing both parties, State Information Commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura observed, “Even in cases where an appellant/complainant files voluminous, repetitive, or allegedly vexatious requests, the SPIO cannot issue any injunction, embargo, or blanket prohibition against such appellant/complainant. The SPIO is required to deal with each RTI application independently and on a case-to-case basis, and may invoke only those exemptions specifically provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005.”
He added, “The RTI Act also contains no provision empowering an SPIO to issue a restraining order against an information seeker. Any such action is clearly ultra vires the provisions of the Act and is therefore without legal sanction. Needless to mention, an SPIO is an authority created by statute and can exercise only those powers which are expressly conferred upon him by the statute.”
The Commissioner’s order, dated June 12, pointed out, “While the misuse of the RTI Act by chronic litigants may, in certain circumstances, impose an administrative burden upon public authorities, neither the public authority nor its SPIO can pass administrative orders restraining a citizen from exercising a statutory right conferred under law.”
The State Information Commissioner then directed the SPIO of Shahabad Sugar Mills Limited to refurnish the complete information to the appellant through registered post within 15 days. Further, the SPIO was directed to submit a detailed explanation specifying the provisions, if any, under the RTI Act, 2005, “which empower an SPIO to debar or restrain an appellant/complainant from filing RTI applications merely on the ground that the appellant/complainant has submitted multiple RTI requests.”
The complainant had filed an RTI application before Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025; however, the SPIO in his response purportedly restrained the complainant from filing RTI applications on the ground that he had submitted repeated requests
Complainant Sandeep Sharan had filed an RTI application before Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025. However, the SPIO in his response dated January 21 purportedly restrained the complainant from filing RTI applications on the ground that he had submitted repeated RTI requests. While denying the information, SPIO further stated in his response that action may be taken against the complainant for disrupting the discharge of official duties if he did not desist from filing RTI applications.
Aggrieved by the response, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Information Commission on January 27. The Commission observed that SPIO failed to furnish the complainant with correct and complete information.
After hearing both parties, State Information Commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura observed, “Even in cases where an appellant/complainant files voluminous, repetitive, or allegedly vexatious requests, the SPIO cannot issue any injunction, embargo, or blanket prohibition against such appellant/complainant. The SPIO is required to deal with each RTI application independently and on a case-to-case basis, and may invoke only those exemptions specifically provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005.”
He added, “The RTI Act also contains no provision empowering an SPIO to issue a restraining order against an information seeker. Any such action is clearly ultra vires the provisions of the Act and is therefore without legal sanction. Needless to mention, an SPIO is an authority created by statute and can exercise only those powers which are expressly conferred upon him by the statute.”
The Commissioner’s order, dated June 12, pointed out, “While the misuse of the RTI Act by chronic litigants may, in certain circumstances, impose an administrative burden upon public authorities, neither the public authority nor its SPIO can pass administrative orders restraining a citizen from exercising a statutory right conferred under law.”
The State Information Commissioner then directed the SPIO of Shahabad Sugar Mills Limited to refurnish the complete information to the appellant through registered post within 15 days. Further, the SPIO was directed to submit a detailed explanation specifying the provisions, if any, under the RTI Act, 2005, “which empower an SPIO to debar or restrain an appellant/complainant from filing RTI applications merely on the ground that the appellant/complainant has submitted multiple RTI requests.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
